Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Hemani Sharma Applicant
-and-
Elvis Benoit Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Decision Date: January 2, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 2 Indexed as: Sharma v. Benoit
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Hemani Sharma, Applicant Self-represented
1By Application filed on December 17, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code").
2The respondent has failed to file a Response, although he has repeatedly been directed to do so. As noted in Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1189 instead of filing a Response, the respondent sent two e-mails to the Tribunal using very inappropriate language. These e-mails establish that the respondent received the Tribunal's correspondence in this matter and chose not to take part in the proceeding. By Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1347, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings and is further deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application.
3Because the respondent did not participate in the proceeding, my findings of fact are based on the Application filed by the applicant. The applicant has indicated that she is content to proceed based on the information set out in her Application. She also filed further documentation referred to in her Application and also filed documentation to support the remedy requested.
4For the reasons that follow, I find that the respondent breached the Code and that the applicant's race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and/or ethnic origin were factors in the respondent's decision to discontinue providing services to the applicant.
THE FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT
5On July 15, 2013, the applicant entered into an agreement with the respondent owner of All-Can Roofing to replace shingles on her roof. The respondent had entered into a similar agreement with two of the applicant's neighbours. The contract for the work indicates that the cost of the work was estimated to be $3200. The applicant provided the respondent with a cheque for $1600 which equalled half the estimated cost of the work to be done. The respondent cashed this cheque on or about July 17, 2013.
6On July 23, 2013, the shingles for the applicant's roof and her neighbours' roof were delivered. The respondent began work on the neighbours' roof the next day. Shortly after starting work on the neighbours' roof, the respondent told them that he had underestimated the cost of the job and he required more money from them to finish the job on their roof. Some of the respondent's employees took shingles from the applicant's roof to finish the job on her neighbours' roof.
7The respondent finished the job on the neighbours' roof on July 26, 2013. There was a further disagreement between the respondent and the neighbours over alleged damage that had been caused to their driveway. In addition, the respondent told the applicant that her neighbours owed her money for the cost of the shingles that were transferred from her roof to her neighbours' roof. When the applicant disagreed with this approach, the respondent said he would get back to her on August 5, 2013.
8The applicant and the respondent had further brief telephone calls, but the respondent ended up ignoring her multiple voicemails.
9On August 30, 2013, the applicant posted a negative review of the respondent on Homestars.com, a website aimed at assisting homeowners to find reputable renovators, repairmen and retailers. The respondent replied with a response in which he said he did not have any money that belonged to the applicant and that he just did not want to work with the applicant. In his response he called the applicant a "scumbag". He further stated:
You guys are scum after what you tried to do to me. I don't know how they do things in PAKISTAN but here when you mess with the BULL you get the HORNS. [emphasis in original]
10At the end of the online post he wrote: "You people are scammers but you did not scam me."
11A couple of days later the respondent amended the response to state that he should have the right to discontinue a job if he felt as though he was being scammed or defrauded by a customer. He went on to say that he would contact her after her neighbour corrected their outstanding balance. He again repeated "I don't know how you do things in Pakistan but we don't do it like that here in Canada."
Analysis
12The Code provides that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services without discrimination on the basis of grounds such as race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin: [s. 1](